The greatest challenge for living with wolves rests
within the human mind

I’ve come to expect, whenever I have looked at
the situation of large carnivores in continental Europe, that there is some
pushback as the wolf, in particular, is increasingly spreading out, and
expanding its distribution range. This is in the nature of wolves, their
territoriality in securing food, their social behaviour and dispersal, are the
intrinsic mechanisms naturally regulating wolf density. What has to be added
to this is the human factor that limits the wolves’ ability to thrive, and to
distribute where it is not tolerated, in spite of the wolf being strictly
protected. It’s a trade-off in land occupation amongst species. As a
significant predator, the presence of wolves creates an exclusion space around
their dens, other wild mammals living in fear of encroaching into that space.
We humans would also at one time have been fearful of the wolf, but as we
became more and more the exceptional species, our ability to remove ourselves
from the threat of predation has meant that our exclusion space, our zones of
intolerance, also expanded. As our territorial gains advanced, that expansion
often led to the extirpation of wolves, resulting in the wolf disappearing
from Britain, Ireland and the central and northern European countries (1).
That the wolf survived into the twentieth century in a number of European
countries, such as in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Finland, and more
numerous populations in Eastern Europe, is why this range expansion now across
Europe has been able to happen, leading to a return of the tensions when
wolves compete with humans for the space that they lost to us. In the
statutory reindeer herding areas in Scandinavia, the conflict space is based
on zero tolerance, a privileging that is a step too far (2).

An article last month surveyed the tensions
confronting some member states in the EU that are feeling pressure from their
farming communities to weaken the strict protection given to wolves under the
European legislation of the Habitats Directive, so that there is a measure of
what in effect would be population control (3) and which the Directive doesn’t
allow (see sections 11.2, 11.3, III.1.2 and 111.2.2 in (4)). It should be
noted that there are some countries in the EU that have complete or partial
exemptions from strict protection of the wolf, but have at least some
regulation on the extent and means of legal killings, such as Estonia,
Finland, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Spain (5). However,
the article records the discontent in France and Sweden (see my take on this
(6)) as well as in Germany, where strict protection is required. Usefully,
this article has two animated graphics that plot the spread of wolves in
Germany and France between 2003 and 2017 (3). My rough count from the graphic
gives an increase from one to over 40 wolf packs as they spread west in
Germany during that time, the latter figure confirmed at 41 in official
monitoring (7). In the case of France, there are new centres of wolf
concentration up and down a westward front across France as the wolf has moved
away from the French Alps. This, along with the current distribution of bears
and lynx in France is mapped by the National Office of Hunting and Wildlife
(8).

A betrayal of the legacy of concern

Italy is also experiencing this tension from its
rural communities, with pressure to replace the national wolf plan from 2002
(9) with a new version that would sanction derogations of up to a maximum of
5% - over 60 wolves - to be legally killed every year, in spite of the fact
that hundreds of wolves are already killed by poachers using rifles, poison
baits or traps (10,11). As evidence of the latter, a project set up by
Italy wildwolf to monitor wolf deaths last November found in its first six
months that 46 of 53 deaths were from human causes (12). It is often a
slaughter with extreme prejudice. A partially skinned wolf was found last
April hanging by its feet from a road sign in Tuscany, a hotbed of
persecution, a placard tied above it as a protest (13,14). Most reports of
this incident voluntarily censored themselves by showing little of the
ghastliness, but a comment piece a few days afterward by Mariangela Corrieri
of a Florence based animal welfare organisation showed the full scene,
Mariangela saying that it was “practiced by inhumane, barbarous men who
cannot distinguish good from evil, beauty from horror”(15).

Dispute for and against that 5% derogation has
led to endless delays in adopting a new wolf plan in Italy (16) leading to a
policy vacuum where persecution of wolves as a means of protest continues,
with two dead wolves hung from a road sign a few weeks ago (17) and the body
of a wolf found hanging on the back of a bus stop only a few days ago, its
skull smashed in with a shovel or fork (18). It means little to these rural
communities that there is a website funded by the Ministry of the Environment
and Protection of Landscape and Sea, and backed by Italian agriculture
confederations, that provides guidance on how farmers can protect their
livestock from attack by wolves (19) that studies have shown that lethal
predator control is not effective in reducing livestock losses, and so maybe
it is more about instinctive prejudice rather than protection of their
livestock, but then often rural communities do themselves little favour when
they are slow or resistant to implementing non-lethal protective measures
(16,20-23). I wonder how sated of their bloodlust those wolf persecutors are,
when to avoid detection they seem to use the cover of dark to stage their
gruesome trophies and are thus denied the childish show-off behaviour of
smiling as they are photographed triumphantly with their kill (24,25).

In a true sense, this is a betrayal of the
legacy of concern that faced Italy after it’s Alpine and Northern Apennine
populations were lost through hunting over the first half of the twentieth
century (26). Only a relatively small population was left, on the verge of
extinction with the consequent loss of its distinct genetic heritage, in 10
locations spread out between the Sibillini to Sila Mountains. Given this
parlous state, the wolf was taken off the listing of harmful species
and its hunting banned in 1971 by way of a Ministerial Decree (Decreto
Ministeriale 23 luglio 1971) (26,27). This was before there were any
supranational agreements on conservation in Europe that would give strict
protection to the wolf, such as the Bern Convention of 1979 or the EU Habitats
Directive of 1992. That strict protection was subsequently written in to
Italian legislation in 1992 on the rules for protection of native wildlife,
where the wolf was listed amongst the “species of mammals and birds of
which there are populations living permanently or temporarily in a state of
natural freedom in the national territory” and which were to be
“particularly protected” under threat of penalties (see Article 2 in (28))
and by the regulation incorporating the EU habitats directive into Italian
legislation in 1997 (see Article 7 and Annex D in (29)). So while there are
illegal killings of wolves in regions where there is resentment at their
return after they had been hunted out – such as Tuscany in the Northern
Apennines - I would suggest that the majority of the population elsewhere in
Italy has a greater respect for the law, and which has translated into a
greater respect for wolves.

Preparing for the return of the wolf

Denmark has yet to exhibit these tensions, but
then the return of the wolf is only a recent phenomenon dating from 2012 and,
since it was foreseen and planned for (30) has been closely monitored through
photographic evidence of sightings as well as DNA analysis of droppings (31).
So far, at least six individual wolfs have been definitively identified and
registered by their DNA, and there is photographic evidence that three wolf
cubs were born last June, but there will be more as the atlas map of
distribution suggests (32). Comparison with the German DNA register shows that
the Danish wolves belong to the Central European wolf population, and thus
made their way into Denmark by crossing the border from Germany (33). The
Netherlands also foresaw the return of wolves and planned for it (30) but
sightings have been few, or only evidenced by dead prey, but there is now
photographic evidence of a wolf in the Veluwe, a forested area in the province
of Gelderland, central Netherlands (34). It seems likely that it also crossed
the border from Germany.

Luxembourg also prepared for the return of the
wolf, even before one set foot in the country, although there had been
sightings just across the borders in Lorraine in France and
Rhineland-Palatinate in Germany (35). A working group was set up in December
2015 by the Environment and Agriculture Ministries that included other
government officials, conservation and science organisations, foresters and
sheep breeders, and which developed a basic structure for an action plan. This
plan was released in February this year, Camille Gira, State Secretary for
Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, describing it as an “instrument
that would allow for a realistic and ecological approach to the wolf in the
future” and which would take into consideration the concerns of cattle and
sheep farmers as well as the general population (36):"Every animal has a role in the ecosystem and we should not have an
anthropocentric view of the problem, which has often been the case in the
past. In the case of the wolf, our attitude is often based not on objective
information but on emotions, childhood stories or fairy tale”

The plan is targeted at those interest groups
that may come into direct conflict with the wolf, such as sheep farmers, and
its purpose is to guarantee a cohabitation between man and the wolf with as
few conflicts as possible (37, 38). The Forward to the plan expresses the
belief that the return of the wolf to Luxembourg will have “a very positive
influence on the forest ecosystem”, and it has this to say later in the
plan “As a great predator, it is a fundamental part of the ecosystem. Its
presence has very positive effects on biodiversity” (38). The plan details
the biological and ecological characteristics of the wolf, surveys the
suitable habitat quality across the country, and then addresses the problems,
and presents solutions, like the means to protect livestock, a compensation
system for loss of livestock, and the granting of subsidies for prevention
measures – “this plan sets out measures of information intended for the
general public, preventive measures and the modalities of compensation in case
of damages caused by the wolf. These means must serve as appropriate
instruments to increase the degree of acceptance of the wolf in the
population, an essential element for the protection of this species and its
important role within the ecosystem, as well as for long-term cohabitation
between the man and the wolf”(38).

Alongside the plan is a brochure aimed at the
general public that presents the biology and ecology of the wolf, discusses
how people should behave in relation to the wolf in the case of a direct
encounter (39). It was intended to prepare people for the possible return of
the wolf, but it was not long in circulation, only four months, before a
farmer photographed a wolf-like animal in his field (40). It did not clearly
identify all the criteria needed for positive proof because of the distance at
which the photograph was taken. However, a week after the photograph, eight
dead sheep were found elsewhere that showed possible signs from the bite marks
as being victims of a wolf (41). For this reason, samples of saliva were taken
from the bite wounds and sent for DNA testing to the Senckenberg Institute in
Germany, which confirmed that the sheep had been killed by a wolf, and that it
had come from the Alpine population group that has its distribution in the
Italian and French Alps. It is not known whether this wolf is still in the
area, but it was the first definitive proof of a presence since 1893.

Engaging with coexistence with wolves

Even where tensions exist, at least some rural
organisations have had the foresight to engage with coexistence with wolves,
rather than just rail against it. A meeting took place three years ago in
Portugal amongst 20 organisations representing the farming, hunting, science
and conservation sectors to discuss the future of the Iberian wolf (42). It
was recognised that the only way to achieve an action plan to conserve the
species in Portugal was to seek consensus among the diverse interests, and
involve civil society in its preparation and implementation. It was soon
followed by a report, funded by the European Commission, on exploring
traditional husbandry methods to reduce wolf predation on free-ranging cattle
in Portugal and Spain (43) this cross border aspect having been recognised at
the meeting. A year later, Grupo Lubo (Wolf Group) in Portugal produced a
brochure that gave information on how to protect cattle from being attacked by
wolves (44). More recently, eight associations, including the Federal
Association of Professional Shepherds, met this year in Germany to agree and
publish a joint statement that saw prevention and compensation of wolf attacks
on grazing animals as a central task of wolf management (45,46). The
associations agreed that the removal of wolves is not a substitute for herd
protection measures, and called for establishment of a national centre for
competency in herd protection where experience on measures such as guard dogs
and fencing could be pooled and integrated into wolf management plans. They
also called for streamlining of the promotion of herd protection, as well as
in the compensation for livestock losses.

It has to be said that there was immediate
criticism by the German Farmers' Association, Federal Association of Hunting
Cooperatives and Owners of Hunting, and the Association of German Sheep
Breeding Associations, of this joint statement (47). Their complaint was that
herd protection measures were burdensome, that they considered them only
effective in some regions, and what they really wanted was prevention of
wolves from dispersing in to those regions which they considered were
difficult to use protection measures. The fact that population management (Bestandsmanagemen)
and population control (Bestandsregulierung) of wolves crops up in the
complaint, the latter twice, shows the special pleading of these organisations.
It flies in face of evidence from nutrition studies of the wolf in Germany
carried out on 6,581 faecal samples between 2001 and 2016 (48). These showed
that unspecified farm animals were 1.1% of dietary biomass, and 0.5% were
mouflon, a non-native, feral sheep population derived from wild sheep that are
a hunted game species in Germany (49). Compare that to the 94.2% made up from
roe, red and fallow deer, plus wild boar (at a surprising 17.2%) rabbits and
hares, and other medium and small sized mammals - all wild and free living
species. It also ignores the information that is already available to them on
living with the return of the wolf, on preventive herd protection through
fencing and dogs to avoid livestock damage by the wolf, and in seeing how
compensation payments have been delivered (50-53). It is also special pleading
in expecting authorities in Germany to discount their own laws on strict
protection of the wolf, as well as that of the Habitats Directive.

A month after the meeting in Germany, the first
Austria-wide Wolf Dialogue Forum took place in Linz that brought
together representatives of hunting, agriculture, nature conservation,
tourism, science and federal authorities (54). A wolf expert from Germany and
a herd protection expert from Switzerland were also on hand to provide advice.
The value of having such a range of knowledge present amongst the organisation
showed how urgent it was to bring everyone to the same level of understanding.
It was agreed that a fact-based communication strategy should reduce the
“emotional hype” about the wolf in public, and that there was a need for
an Austria-wide action plan for the wolf. There is to be a second Wolf
Dialogue Forum held in the Spring of 2018, with invites going out to a wider
audience. A few weeks after that meeting, the Federation of Associations for
Hunting and Conservation, which represents national hunters associations from
34 European countries, organised a conference on coexisting with large
carnivores at the European Parliament in Brussels (55). The main message
emerging from the conference was that more effective measures needed to be
implemented now to mitigate the increasing conflicts between humans and large
carnivores in Europe. While speakers urged constructive dialogue and
collaboration with stakeholders, Daniel Heindl of the Lower Austrian Chamber
of Agriculture, called for conflict free areas where grazing and pastoral
farming was marginal, such as in Alpine regions of Europe. He eschewed what he
described as the “elaborate protective measures” that would be required
for a continuance of that marginal farming.

Just days ago, the Union of Small Farmers and
Ranchers in Spain hosted the inaugural screening in Madrid of a documentary it
made with funding from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and
Environment entitled Coexistence? Livestock and wolves(56). Interviews were recorded between March and October this year
with farmers in Zamora and Asturias, regions where wolves are not strictly
protected in Spain, on how they have to live with the wolf, as well as nature
conservation organisations and those working for the protection of the wolf in
Spain (57). Lorenzo Ramos, general secretary of the Union of Small Farmers and
Ranchers, recognised the need for administrations, livestock farmers and
animal welfare organizations to work "in the search for solutions" to
achieve "coexistence" between cattle and wolves. He believes the
documentary shows the willingness of the people affected to find solutions and
"not only choose to mount demonstrations for or against the wolf" He
wants to look for solutions that have not yet been developed to scare the
wolves out of herds. Although I understood little of the Spanish of this
documentary, I found it beguiling (58)

Given that so much of the tension surrounding
wolves arises from frustration at what is seen by rural communities as the
imposition of the strict protection that they receive under EU legislation,
transposed into national legislation, then it is not surprising that the
European Commission initiated a range of measures on large carnivores in the
EU (59). These include reports funded by the Commission on population level
management (60,61) to encourage cooperation between member states (62,63)
promoting dialogue with stakeholders (64) and promoting best practices for
coexistence with large carnivores (65-67). A listing of case studies on how
original conflictual situations have been resolved is especially useful, with
its thumbnail portrait of each project or service (68). I remember about seven
years ago coming across a simple leaflet developed by the Large Carnivore
Initiative for Europe, with backing from the European Commission, on
coexisting with large carnivores, describing the opportunity it presented –
“We have the potential to foster a unique experiment where we reintegrate
these wild creatures into the fabric of the landscapes” – and the
challenges, such as predation of livestock, competition with hunters, the need
for larger spaces that the carnivores could expand into to ensure their
existence, and the barriers from prejudice (69). The leaflet was expanded with
species information and case studies when it was turned into a catalogue to
reflect the posters that were displayed at a travelling exhibition in 2009
(70,71). Both the leaflet and the catalogue have these words that encapsulate
how we must prepare all of ourselves for the return of large carnivores like
the wolf:“We have the possibility to create a new vision for the European landscape
– where wildlife which is truly wild lives close to us. The greatest challenge
rests within the human mind. Can we learn to tolerate these species? Can we
learn to share our living space and some of our resources with them? Can we
overcome centuries of prejudice? Can we turn fear into respect? Most
importantly, can we adjust our image of the European countryside to one where
there is room for the wild? The large carnivores have demonstrated that they
can live with us, the question remains if we can live with them. Their future
is entirely at the mercy of our tolerance”

The intrinsic value of lost wild nature

It is of course no hardship for me to compile
this information on the growing pains of the integration of large carnivores
back into landscapes across Europe when I see it as essential that there is a
counter to the superficiality of most reports on the likely reinstatement of
former native carnivores to Britain, or indeed the outright hostility that it
frequently engenders. I hope that through a rational approach to the
challenges that we will face, that I can convey a positive outlook from which
others can make their mind up about coming to terms with living with the wolf.
If only this was the case with our media, a particularly poor example being a
recent article by Catherine Bennett in the Guardian
where she sought to blackguard the “disenchanted human beings” who
consider the possibility of wolf reinstatement in Britain (72). Her wolf
prejudice is straightforward, as Bennet says “…among the more appealing
aspects of life in Britain, for the nervous, is the relative certainty of
never encountering a wolf pack…….As a recreational walker, I can barely
express how grateful I am to inhabit, instead, a landscape dominated by the
labradoodle”. Bennett tangentially mentions the
protests against wolves by sheep farmers in France, but then notes what she
refers to as the “recent celebrations” over the return of wolves to the
outskirts of Rome, as though this is a victory for “disenchanted human
beings” everywhere. Bennett seems unaware of the
conflict currently surrounding wolves in Italy, because she lends them to her
concluding paragraph:“While France and Italy have thriving packs, there seems no good reason why
the British public should be denied its own wolf population, even if it may
well tell us less about thrilling nature than about the disenchanted human
beings who opted to put them back”

I had to track down the real story on these
celebrations for the return of the wolf, expecting it to be about mass parties
in the streets of Rome. Instead, it was a news release, widely reported in
Italy, from the Italian League for the Protection of Birds (73). It was hardly
a celebration, just Fulvio Mamone Capria, the president of the League,
expressing his delight that photo-traps on Castel di Guido, one of its nature
reserves a few miles from Rome, had caught two wolf cubs on camera traps
sometime in September this year, born to parents that took up residence there
in February 2016 – "An extraordinary event that we are honoured to be able
to accommodate in our reserve”. It was what he said next that put this
event into context when he described the wolf as “an emblematic species of
our natural heritage, yet still victim of poachers and other subjects who do
not tolerate their presence. However, the presence of this species, which
contains the excess ungulate populations, provides a precious balance to the
ecosystem, as well as being a precious, even strongly symbolic, presence for
the fauna of the capital and the entire country”

I have not mentioned the opportunities or
benefits that reinstatement of large carnivores like the wolf will have for
Britain, as the plan for wolves in Luxembourg does (see earlier) and which
Fulvio Mamone Capria notes for the wolves in his nature reserve near Rome. I
tend not to overplay things like benefits because I take the view that it’s
not about gain but absence when considering the intrinsic value of lost wild
nature, that absence or incompleteness having consequences for the trophic
ecology of our landscapes. I don’t want to see wolves just as a tool to manage
our native wild deer, or wild boar if they are properly reinstated (see
earlier on the contribution of wild boar to the diet of wolves in Germany).
Yet you have to take notice of what’s currently happening in Switzerland since
the wolf returned in 1995 after it had been hunted out along with its prey
over 100 years ago (74,75). The Federal Office for the
Environment worked with relevant stakeholders to develop concepts for
management for the wolf, lynx and bear, which take account of conflicts with
humans, identifies ways of resolving them and regulates compensation, and this
is coupled by a separate website with wide-ranging information on livestock
protection from large carnivores (76,77). Switzerland’s first wolf pack formed on the Calanda massif in 2012 (75) since when the number of deer in the area
decreased by an estimated third, according to the Graubünden Office for
Hunting and Fishing, while it increased by 18 percent throughout the canton
(78). There is also evidence in the annual report on
wolves in the canton of Graubünden that there are behavioural changes in prey
species because of the presence of the wolves - “Based on the observations
of gamekeepers, a decline in stocks mainly of red deer and roe deer can be
seen. The presence of the wolf pack shows a clearly identifiable influence on
the behaviour of this game. They have become shy and significantly changed
their behaviour towards using space” (see section 4 in (79)).
There is also a knock-on effect on vegetation: Mattiu Cathomen, district forester in Tamins, a core habitat of the
Calanda wolf pack, has already observed a positive influence of the wolf in
that the number of young silver firs aged two to five years has increased
sharply as the damaging effects of the deer have reduced
(78). It’s thus
unsurprising that the new Forest Development Plan for the region around the
city of Chur in Graubünden canton, produced by the Office of Forest and
Natural Hazards, specifically notes that a “wolf pack has been established
in the Calanda region, which regularly gives birth to new offspring. The
impact of this development on hoofed game and related wildlife damage is being
investigated. From a forestry point of view, it is hoped that the
concentrations of chamois and deer will generally decrease and the living
space will be used more dynamically” (80). The natural spread of the large
carnivores (wolf, lynx, bear) into the area of the Forest Development Plan is
supported as an objective of the plan.

I will come back to the potentialities for
greater trophic occupancy, for a completeness of trophic ecology as manifested
elsewhere, as it may naturally relate to Britain.

Mark Fisher 15, 21 November 2017

(1) Boitani, L. (2000). Action Plan for the
conservation of the wolves (Canis lupus) in Europe. Convention on the
Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention).
Nature and environment, 11, 83.

(5) Linnell, J. D., & Boitani, L. (2011).
Building biological realism into wolf management policy: the development of
the population approach in Europe. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy,
23(1): 80-91

(63) EU Platform on
Large Carnivores: Supporting good practice for coexistence – presentation of
examples and analysis of support through the EAFRD, European Commission,
Service Contract No. 07.0202/2015/713809/SER/ENV/B.3 May 2016

(64) From conflict to coexistence? Insights from
multidisciplinary research into the relationships between people, large
carnivores and institutions. European Commission contract
N°070307/2012/629085/SER/B3 February 2013